Hospital characteristics associated with highly automated and usable clinical information systems in Texas, United States

Developing and Trialling an Independent, Scalable and Repeatable IT-benchmarking Procedure for Healthcare Organisations

Background: Continuous improvements of IT-performance in healthcare organisations require actionable performance indicators, regularly conducted, independent measurements and meaningful and scalable reference groups. Existing IT-benchmarking initiatives have focussed on the development of reliable and valid indicators, but less on the questions about how to implement an environment for conducting easily repeatable and scalable IT-benchmarks.

Objectives: This study aims at developing and trialling a procedure that meets the afore-mentioned requirements.

Methods: We chose a well established, regularly conducted (inter-) national IT-survey of healthcare organisations (IT-Report Health-care) as the environment and offered the participants of the 2011 survey (CIOs of hospitals) to enter a benchmark. The 61 structural and functional performance indicators cov -ered among others the implementation status and integration of IT-systems and functions, global user satisfaction and the resources of the IT-department. Healthcare organisations were grouped by size and ownership. The benchmark results were made available electronically and feedback on the use of these results was requested after several months.

Results: Fifty-nine hospitals participated in the benchmarking. Reference groups consisted of up to 141 members depending on the number of beds (size) and the ownership (public vs. private). A total of 122 charts showing single indicator frequency views were sent to each participant. The evaluation showed that 94.1% of the CIOs who participated in the evaluation considered this benchmarking beneficial and reported that they would enter again. Based on the feedback of the participants we developed two additional views that provide a more consolidated picture.

Conclusion: The results demonstrate that establishing an independent, easily repeatable and scalable IT-benchmarking procedure is possible and was deemed desirable. Based on these encouraging results a new benchmarking round which includes process indicators is currently conducted.

International health IT benchmarking: learning from cross-country comparisons

OBJECTIVE

To pilot benchmark measures of health information and communication technology (ICT) availability and use to facilitate cross-country learning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prior Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development-led effort involving 30 countries selected and defined functionality-based measures for availability and use of electronic health records, health information exchange, personal health records, and telehealth. In this pilot, an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Working Group compiled results for 38 countries for a subset of measures with broad coverage using new and/or adapted country-specific or multinational surveys and other sources from 2012 to 2015. We also synthesized country learnings to inform future benchmarking.

RESULTS

While electronic records are widely used to store and manage patient information at the point of care-all but 2 pilot countries reported use by at least half of primary care physicians; many had rates above 75%-patient information exchange across organizations/settings is less common. Large variations in the availability and use of telehealth and personal health records also exist.

DISCUSSION

Pilot participation demonstrated interest in cross-national benchmarking. Using the most comparable measures available to date, it showed substantial diversity in health ICT availability and use in all domains. The project also identified methodological considerations (e.g., structural and health systems issues that can affect measurement) important for future comparisons.

CONCLUSION

While health policies and priorities differ, many nations aim to increase access, quality, and/or efficiency of care through effective ICT use. By identifying variations and describing key contextual factors, benchmarking offers the potential to facilitate cross-national learning and accelerate the progress of individual countries.

Innovative Power of Health Care Organisations Affects IT Adoption: A bi-National Health IT Benchmark Comparing Austria and Germany

Multinational health IT benchmarks foster cross-country learning and have been employed at various levels, e.g. OECD and Nordic countries. A bi-national benchmark study conducted in 2007 revealed a significantly higher adoption of health IT in Austria compared to Germany, two countries with comparable healthcare systems. We now investigated whether these differences still persisted. We further studied whether these differences were associated with hospital intrinsic factors, i.e. the innovative power of the organisation and hospital demographics. We thus performed a survey to measure the "perceived IT availability" and the "innovative power of the hospital" of 464 German and 70 Austrian hospitals. The survey was based on a questionnaire with 52 items and was given to the directors of nursing in 2013/2014. Our findings confirmed a significantly greater IT availability in Austria than in Germany. This was visible in the aggregated IT adoption composite score "IT function" as well as in the IT adoption for the individual functions "nursing documentation" (OR = 5.98), "intensive care unit (ICU) documentation" (OR = 2.49), "medication administration documentation" (OR = 2.48), "electronic archive" (OR = 2.27) and "medication" (OR = 2.16). "Innovative power" was the strongest factor to explain the variance of the composite score "IT function". It was effective in hospitals of both countries but significantly more effective in Austria than in Germany. "Hospital size" and "hospital system affiliation" were also significantly associated with the composite score "IT function", but they did not differ between the countries. These findings can be partly associated with the national characteristics. Indicators point to a more favourable financial situation in Austrian hospitals; we thus argue that Austrian hospitals may possess a larger degree of financial freedom to be innovative and to act accordingly. This study is the first to empirically demonstrate the effect of "innovative power" in hospitals on health IT adoption in a bi-national health IT benchmark. We recommend directly including the financial situation into future regression models. On a political level, measures to stimulate the "innovative power" of hospitals should be considered to increase the digitalisation of healthcare.

Impact of the meaningful use incentive program on electronic health record adoption by US children's hospitals

OBJECTIVE

We determined adoption rates of pediatric-oriented electronic health record (EHR) features by US children's hospitals and assessed perceptions regarding the suitability of commercial EHRs for pediatric care and the influence of the meaningful use incentive program on implementation of pediatric-oriented features.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We surveyed members of the Children's Hospital Association. We measured adoption of 19 pediatric-oriented features and asked whether commercial EHRs include key pediatric-focused capabilities. We inquired about the meaningful use program's relevance to pediatrics and its influence on EHR implementation priorities.

RESULTS

Of 164 general acute care children's hospitals, 100 (61%) responded to the survey. Rates of comprehensive (across all pediatric units) adoption ranged from 37% (age-, gender-, and weight-adjusted blood pressure percentiles and immunization contraindication warnings) to 87% (age in appropriate units). Implementation rates for several features varied significantly by children's hospital type. Nearly 60% of hospitals reported having EHRs that do not contain all features essential for high-quality care. A majority of hospitals indicated that the meaningful use program has had no effect on their adoption of pediatric features, while 26% said they have delayed or forgone incorporation of such features because of the program.

CONCLUSIONS

Children's hospitals are implementing pediatric-focused features, but a sizable proportion still finds their systems suboptimal for pediatric care. The meaningful use incentive program is failing to promote and in some cases delaying uptake of pediatric-oriented features.

What Are Complex eHealth Innovations and How Do You Measure Them? Position Paper

OBJECTIVES

eHealth and innovation are often regarded as synonyms - not least because eHealth technologies and applications are new to their users. This position paper challenges this view and aims at exploring the nature of eHealth innovation against the background of common definitions of innovation and facts from the biomedical and health informatics literature. A good understanding of what constitutes innovative eHealth developments allows the degree of innovation to be measured and interpreted.

METHODS

To this end, relevant biomedical and health informatics literature was searched mainly in Medline and ACM digital library. This paper presents seven facts about implementing and applying new eHealth developments hereby drawing on the experience published in the literature.

RESULTS

The facts are: 1. eHealth innovation is relative. 2. Advanced clinical practice is the yardstick. 3. Only used and usable eHealth technology can give birth to eHealth innovatio. 4. One new single eHealth function does not make a complex eHealth innovation. 5. eHealth innovation is more evolution than revolution. 6. eHealth innovation is often triggered behind the scenes; and 7. There is no eHealth innovation without sociocultural change.

CONCLUSIONS

The main conclusion of the seven facts is that eHealth innovations have many ingredients: newness, availability, advanced clinical practice with proven outcomes, use and usability, the supporting environment, other context factors and the stakeholder perspectives. Measuring eHealth innovation is thus a complex matter. To this end we propose the development of a composite score that expresses comprehensively the nature of eHealth innovation and that breaks down its complexity into the three dimensions: i) eHealth adoption, ii) partnership with advanced clinical practice, and iii) use and usability of eHealth. In order to better understand the momentum and mechanisms behind eHealth innovation the fourth dimension, iv) eHealth supporting services and means, needs to be studied. Conceptualising appropriate measurement instruments also requires eHealth innovation to be distinguished from eHealth sophistication, performance and quality, although innovation is intertwined with these concepts. The demanding effort for defining eHealth innovation and measuring it properly seem worthwhile and promise advances in creating better systems. This paper thus intends to stimulate the necessary discussion.

Impact of a clinical decision support system on pharmacy clinical interventions, documentation efforts, and costs

Health care organizations are turning to electronic clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) to increase quality of patient care and promote a safer environment. A CDSS is a promising approach to the aggregation and use of patient data to identify patients who would most benefit from interventions by pharmacy clinicians. However, there are limited published reports describing the impact of CDSS on clinical pharmacy measures. In February 2011, Good Shepherd Medical Center, a 425-bed acute care community hospital in East Texas, implemented a CDSS (TheraDoc clinical surveillance system). Prior to CDSS implementation, clinicians struggled with obtaining and documenting the data needed to support clinical initiatives. The value of having both clinical and staff pharmacists utilizing the CDSS has improved communication and knowledge among staff and improved relationships with medical staff, nursing, and case management. The department of pharmacy increased its clinical interventions from an average of 1,986 per month to 4,065 per month; this represents a 105% increase in the number of interventions. The annual estimated cost savings after CDSS implementation is $2,999,508, representing a 96% increase per year and translating into a $1,469,907 annual return on investment.

Change in adoption of electronic health records by US children's hospitals

OBJECTIVES To assess electronic health record (EHR) adoption and meaningful use among US children's hospitals through 2011 and compare these outcomes with adult hospitals and among subgroups of children's hospitals. We hypothesized that children's hospitals would show progress since our initial evaluation of health information technology (HIT) implementation in 2008.

METHODS

We identified children's hospitals using the membership directory of the Children's Hospital Association and analyzed their responses from 2008 to 2011 to the American Hospital Association's annual HIT survey. EHR adoption rates were determined by using previously specified definitions of the essential functionalities comprising an EHR. Achievement of meaningful use was evaluated based on hospitals' ability to fulfill 12 core meaningful use criteria. We compared these outcomes in 2011 between children's and adult hospitals and among subgroups of children's hospitals.

RESULTS

Of 162 children's hospitals, 126 (78%) responded to the survey in 2011. The proportion of children's hospitals with an EHR increased from 21% (in 2008) to 59% (in 2011). In 2011, 29% of children's hospitals met the 12 core criteria in our meaningful use proxy measure. EHR adoption rates and meaningful use were significantly higher for children's hospitals than for adult hospitals as a whole but similar for children's and adult major teaching hospitals. Among children's hospitals, major teaching hospitals were significantly more likely to have an EHR.

CONCLUSIONS

Children's hospitals have achieved substantial gains in HIT implementation although minor teaching and nonteaching institutions are not keeping pace.

IT adoption of clinical information systems in Austrian and German hospitals: results of a comparative survey with a focus on nursing

BACKGROUND

IT adoption is a process that is influenced by different external and internal factors. This study aimed1. to identify similarities and differences in the prevalence of medical and nursing IT systems in Austrian and German hospitals, and2. to match these findings with characteristics of the two countries, in particular their healthcare system, and with features of the hospitals.

METHODS

In 2007, all acute care hospitals in both countries received questionnaires with identical questions. 12.4% in Germany and 34.6% in Austria responded.

RESULTS

The surveys revealed a consistent higher usage of nearly all clinical IT systems, especially nursing systems, but also PACS and electronic archiving systems, in Austrian than in German hospitals. These findings correspond with a significantly wider use of standardised nursing terminologies and a higher number of PC workstations on the wards (average 2.1 PCs in Germany, 3.2 PCs in Austria). Despite these differences, Austrian and German hospitals both reported a similar IT budget of 2.6% in Austria and 2.0% in Germany (median).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the many similarities of the Austrian and German healthcare system there are distinct differences which may have led to a wider use of IT systems in Austrian hospitals. In nursing, the specific legal requirement to document nursing diagnoses in Austria may have stimulated the use of standardised terminologies for nursing diagnoses and the implementation of electronic nursing documentation systems. Other factors which correspond with the wider use of clinical IT systems in Austria are: good infrastructure of medical-technical devices, rigorous organisational changes which had led to leaner processes and to a lower length of stay, and finally a more IT friendly climate. As country size is the most pronounced difference between Germany and Austria it could be that smaller countries, such as Austria, are more ready to translate innovation into practice.